Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:41:35 -0600 (CST) From: Erick White <erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us> To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" (fwd) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.991116004113.26827B-100000@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=09Latest comments by your friendly UNIX Advocate: Erick On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > > "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> writes: > > > > > When you are dealing with an anti-trust case, you are > > > looking to find, and fix, monopoly harm. The theory is that a > > > monopoly is capable of doing things that a more competitive > > > market would not allow. The three chief types of monopoly harm > > > are reduced quality, reduced output, and increased prices. > > > > > > The part that I was talking about was increased prices. So > > > the question is, is the price of Windows high because Microsoft > > > enjoys a monopoly position and could charge whatever it wants. > > > And my answer was, no, because the price of Windows is > > > reasonable considering the effort expended to develop it, market > > > it, maintain it, support it, and research future developments. > > > > Microsoft considered those factors, calculated a reasonable price, > > and then decided to nearly double that price simply because the > > lack of a competitive market allowed them to. >=20 > =09Right, because if they don't maximize revenue, they won't be able to d= o the > research needed to keep Windows competitive. The software market is > sufficiently dynamic that Windows has to become almost an entirely new > product every two years to maintain its status as market leader. =09Excuse me. No really EXCUSE ME, as in listen what everyone is telling you and what is outlined in the findings of fact. Microsoft is not using there money on research for these products included in the OS, they are stealing the ideas, making a poor substitute for what they replace on MOST of their applications, programs, etc... The bar they are only meeting not raising and keeping others from raising it as well, in the equivelent of what someone so elequintly put it as racketeering on top of the anti trust. Research? The feild test their products not even fully finish the job to begin with in the programming department. Their not spending their money by and large on research, their using it to cannibilize other threats to their products, and then crush them into powder as the company throws its money behind it. Their letting other companies do the research for them, then they try to crush them once they see what they need for a bare minimum to drive out the compitition with a cat o nine tails. What they have been doing, and doing for YEARS is letting the compition test the waters, once it realizes that it is a threat it comes up with a "solution" for what it did not think up did not create, and then continues on its merry way.. Nuh Uh.. not good.... Reread your facts. > > Paragraph 62: > > Microsoft's actual pricing behavior is consistent with the > > proposition that the firm enjoys monopoly power in the market > > for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. The company's > > decision not to consider the prices of other vendors' Intel- > > compatible PC operating systems when setting the price of > > Windows 98, for example, is probative of monopoly power. One > > would expect a firm in a competitive market to pay much closer > > attention to the prices charged by other firms in the market. [...= ] >=20 > =09Actually, they Microsoft's pricing is consistent with a firm that need= s to > spend massive amounts on research and development to keep its products > competitive. Yes, they maximize revenue (as every firm does) primarily to > allow them to maintain Window's competitiveness. This is far different fr= om > the type of price raising that is monopoly harm. =09 =09Refer to what I, and everyone else is telling you above this point. No research, just conquering. It is monopoly harm, becouse what their taking credit for was actually researched, updated, run, and designed by someone else's brain.=20 =09I will grant you that they do do some research, and a few of their products are actually well done and made... but that is few and far between, and not something included in the OS at the start. The research money it does should be from the things it is actually creating. Just... open your eyes man.=20 >=20 > > Paragraph 63: > > Finally, it is indicative of monopoly power that Microsoft felt th= at > > it had substantial discretion in setting the price of its Windows > > 98 upgrade product (the operating system product it sells to > > existing users of Windows 95). A Microsoft study from > > November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged > > $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 =97 there is no reason to >=20 > =09Would does this "could have charged" mean? They could have given it aw= ay > for free. =09Yes they could of done it for free, but your grasping at straws here. They would still have made a killing. Still have made quite a bit of money, but they are doing harm to the market by basicaly charging you double for the same 90 percent of the source code. I mean I have on another computer Windows95 C second release... and you know what? It is almost exactly like 98, their is VERY few differences, and if you downloud upgrades to the pack... then you pretty much have Win98, without paying a dime more... > > believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable =97 but > > the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. > > Microsoft thus opted for the higher price. >=20 > =09I'm not sure I believe that. Personally, I think Microsoft set the pri= ce > far above the revenue-maximizing price. Heck, the more people who use > Windows the more people they can sell Microsoft office too, right? >=20 > =09Of course, every company sets its prices at the revenue-maximizing pri= ce. > If Microsoft didn't do that, their management should be fired. The bigges= t > balancing factor for Microsoft is that the more expensive Windows is, the > more incentive there is to market and develop alternatives to it. >=20 > =09To the extent that Windows is a monopoly, it is a temporary one. Much = as > vinyl records were a monopoly for awhile, soon replaced by cassette tapes= , > now replaced by CDs, and probably soon to be replaced by some other forma= t. > Microsoft will do everything possible to maximize the amount of time its > operating systems matter, but ultimately, there will be nothing it can do= -- > it will have to invent a new product or lose its market share. >=20 =09Here is the primary flaw with your thinking. Your assuming that those who made the vinyl records didn't have money to squash those making tapes and keep those from taking hold, and advancing technology, and they viynl records weren't exactgly exclusively owned by one company either. M$ has proven that they have the money and power base to squash other technologies in the computer feild as far as the larger field is concerned. The reason why free UNIX's can run on it is becouse, being a not for profit operating system.... well the definition is close enough, it CAN NOT BE INFLUENCED by "Pa Bill" becouse it can't be denied money for its developers. > =09This is not the type of monopoly that the anti-trust laws were meant t= o > prevent. They were supposed to stop a static monopoly, where a company ca= n > charge whatever it wants and sell whatever it wants. Microsoft can't do > that. >=20 > =09DS >=20 =09Microsoft has and does do this, it can charge whatever it wants just like the price outlay for the new joke win2000. It pretty much dominates the PC industry, and strong arms anyone else that tries to improve, thus being able to control, charge, and sell, whatever it wants. Wake up buddy boy, its doing it right now... and your too brainwashed at the present moment to notice! >=20 >=20 > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message >=20 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.3.96.991116004113.26827B-100000>